Editing Reform Act 1832 (section)

==Results==

===Provisions===

====Abolition of seats====
[[File:Sheffield Typographical Society - Reform Act.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Poster issued by the [[Sheffield]] Typographical Society celebrating the passing of the Reform Act]]

The Reform Act's chief objective was the reduction of the number of nomination boroughs. There were 203 boroughs in England before the Act.{{efn|Including Monmouth, considered part of Wales under sections 1, 20 and 269 of the [[Local Government Act 1972]] (cap. 70). The [[Interpretation Act 1978]] (cap. 30) provides that before 1 April 1974, "a reference to England includes [[Berwick-upon-Tweed]] and [[Monmouthshire]]".}} The 56 smallest of these, as measured by their housing stock and tax assessments, were completely abolished. The next 30 smallest boroughs each lost one of their two MPs. In addition [[Weymouth and Melcombe Regis (UK Parliament constituency)|Weymouth and Melcombe Regis]]'s four members were reduced to two. Thus in total the Act abolished 143 borough seats in England (one of the boroughs to be completely abolished, [[Higham Ferrers (UK Parliament constituency)|Higham Ferrers]], returned only a single MP).<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/constituencies/higham-ferrers| title=Higham Ferrers. Borough |work=History of Parliament| access-date = 14 September 2021}}</ref>

====Creation of new seats====
In their place the Act created 130 new seats in England and Wales:
* 26 English counties were divided into two divisions with each division being represented by two members.
* 8 English counties and 3 Welsh counties each received an additional representative.
* Yorkshire, which was represented by four MPs before the Act, was given an extra two MPs (so that each of its three [[Riding (division)|ridings]] was represented by two MPs).
* 22 large towns were given two MPs.
* Another 21 towns (of which two were in Wales) were given one MP.

Thus 65 new county seats and 65 new borough seats were created in England and Wales. The total number of English members fell by 17 and the number in Wales increased by four.{{efn|Wales did not lose any of its existing borough representatives because with the exception of Beaumaris and Montgomery these members represented groups of towns rather than an individual town. To enable Wales to retain all of its existing borough seats the Act therefore simply increased, where necessary, the number of towns in these groupings and created entirely new groupings for Beaumaris and Montgomery.}} The boundaries of the new divisions and parliamentary boroughs were defined in a separate Act, the [[Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832]].

====Extension of the franchise====
In county constituencies, franchise rights were extended to [[Copyhold|copyholders]] and long-term (at least sixty years) leaseholders of land with at least £10{{efn|name=ten1832|£10 was equivalent to £{{inflation|UK|10|1832|fmt=c|r=-2}} in {{Inflation/year|UK}} terms in 1832.{{Inflation/fn|UK}}}} annual value, medium-term (between twenty and sixty years) leaseholders of land with at least £10 annual value, and to [[tenants-at-will]] paying an annual rent of at least £50{{efn|name=fifty1832|£50 was equivalent to £{{inflation|UK|50|1832|fmt=c|r=-2}} in {{Inflation/year|UK}} terms in 1832.{{Inflation/fn|UK}}}}. Annual value refers to the rent at which the land might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. (The franchise rights of 40 shilling freeholders were retained.)<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Reform Act of 1832 |url=http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/refact/refact.htm |access-date=2024-01-19 |website=www.historyhome.co.uk}}</ref>

The property qualifications of borough franchise were standardised to male occupants of property who paid a yearly rental of £10{{efn|name=ten1832}} or more. The property could be a house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building as long as it was occupied, and occupied for at least 12 months.<ref>Johnston, Neil. ''The History of Parliamentary Franchise''. London: House of Commons Library, 2013. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp13-14/.</ref> Existing borough electors retained a lifetime right to vote, however they had qualified, provided they were resident in the boroughs in which they were electors. In those boroughs which had freemen electors, voting rights were to be enjoyed by future freemen as well, provided their freemanship was acquired through birth or apprenticeship and they too were resident.{{efn|Immediately after 1832, more than a third of borough electors—over 100,000—were "ancient right" electors, the greater proportion being freemen. Their numbers dwindled by death, and by 1898 apparently only one ancient right "potwalloper" remained a registered elector.}}

The Act also introduced a system of [[voter registration]], to be administered by the [[Overseer of the poor|overseers of the poor]] in every parish and township. It instituted a system of special courts to review disputes relating to voter qualifications. It also authorised the use of multiple polling places within the same constituency, and limited the duration of polling to two days. (Formerly, polls could remain open for up to fifteen days.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Burlock |first=Hillary |date=2023-07-03 |title=Georgian Elections: the Basics |url=https://ecppec.ncl.ac.uk/features/georgian-elections-the-basics/ |access-date=2024-01-19 |website=ECPPEC |language=en-US}}</ref>)

The Reform Act itself did not affect constituencies in Scotland or Ireland. However, there were also reforms there, under the [[Scottish Reform Act 1832|Scottish Reform Act]] and the [[Irish Reform Act 1832|Irish Reform Act]]. Scotland received eight additional seats, and Ireland received five; thus keeping the total number of seats in the House of Commons the same as it had been before the Act. While no constituencies were disfranchised in either of those countries, voter qualifications were standardised and the size of the electorate was increased in both.{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

===Effects===
Between 1835 and 1841, local Conservative Associations began to educate citizens about the party's platform and encouraged them to register to vote annually, as required by the Act. Coverage of national politics in the local press was joined by in-depth reports on provincial politics in the national press. Grassroots Conservatives therefore saw themselves as part of a national political movement during the 1830s.<ref>Matthew Cragoe, "The Great Reform Act and the Modernization of British Politics: The Impact of Conservative Associations, 1835–1841", ''Journal of British Studies,'' July 2008, Vol. 47 Issue 3, pp 581–603</ref>

The size of the pre-Reform electorate is difficult to estimate. Voter registration was lacking, and many boroughs were rarely contested in elections. It is estimated that immediately before the 1832 Reform Act, 400,000 English subjects (people who lived in the country) were entitled to vote, and that after passage, the number rose to 650,000, an increase of more than 60%.<ref>Phillips and Wetherell (1995), pp. 413–414.</ref> Rodney Mace estimates that before, 1 per cent of the population could vote and that the Reform Act only extended the franchise to 7 per cent of the population.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Rodney Mace |title=British Trade Union Posters: An Illustrated History |date=1999 |publisher=[[Sutton Publishing]] |isbn=0750921587 |page=14}}</ref>

Tradesmen, such as shoemakers, believed that the Reform Act had given them the vote. One example is the shoemakers of [[Duns, Scottish Borders]], [[Berwickshire]]. They created a banner celebrating the Reform Act which declared, "The battle's won. Britannia's sons are free." This banner is on display at [[People's History Museum]] in [[Manchester]].<ref>{{citation |title=Collection Highlights, Shoemakers Banner |publisher=People's History Museum |url=http://www.phm.org.uk/our-collection/shoemakers-banner/}}</ref>

Many major commercial and industrial cities became separate parliamentary boroughs under the Act. The new constituencies saw party conflicts within the middle class, and between the middle class and working class. A study of elections in the medium-sized borough of Halifax, 1832–1852, concluded that the party organisations, and the voters themselves, depended heavily on local social relationships and local institutions. Having the vote encouraged many men to become much more active in the political, economic and social sphere.<ref>Toshihiko Iwama, "Parties, Middle-Class Voters, And The Urban Community: Rethinking The Halifax Parliamentary Borough Elections, 1832–1852," ''Northern History'' (2014) 51#1 pp. 91–112</ref>

The Scottish Act revolutionised politics in Scotland, with its population of 2&nbsp;million. Its electorate had been only 0.2% of the population compared to 4% in England. The Scottish electorate overnight soared from 5,000 to 65,000, or 13% of the adult men, and was no longer a private preserve of a few very rich families.<ref name = Houston/>

==== Tenant voters ====
Most of the [[pocket borough]]s abolished by the Reform Act belonged to the Tory party. These losses were somewhat offset by the extension of the vote to tenants-at-will paying an annual rent of £50.{{efn|name=fifty1832}} This clause, proposed by the Tory [[Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos|Marquess of Chandos]], was adopted in the House of Commons despite opposition from the Government. The tenants-at-will thereby enfranchised typically voted as instructed by their landlords, who in turn normally supported the Tory party.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 428.</ref> This concession, together with the Whig party's internal divisions and the difficulties faced by the nation's economy, allowed the Tories under [[Robert Peel|Sir Robert Peel]] to make gains in the elections of [[1835 United Kingdom general election|1835]] and [[1837 United Kingdom general election|1837]], and to retake the House of Commons in [[1841 United Kingdom general election|1841]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

A modern historian's examination of votes in the House concluded that the traditional landed interest "suffered very little" by the 1832 Act. They continued to dominate the Commons, while losing some of their power to enact laws that focused on their more parochial interests. By contrast, the same study concluded that the [[1867 Reform Act]] caused serious erosion of their legislative power and the 1874 elections saw great landowners losing their county seats to the votes of tenant farmers in England and especially in Ireland.<ref>David F. Krein "The Great Landowners in the House of Commons, 1833–85," ''Parliamentary History'' (2013) 32#3 pp 460–476</ref>

===Limitations===
The property qualifications of the Reform Act were substantial at the time and barred most of the working class from the vote. This created division between the working class and the middle class and led to the growth of the [[Chartism|Chartist Movement]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Chartist Movement |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/chartists/overview/chartistmovement/ |access-date=22 July 2022 |website=UK Parliament}}</ref>

Although it did disenfranchise most [[rotten borough]]s, a few remained, such as [[Totnes (UK Parliament constituency)|Totnes]] in Devon and [[Midhurst (UK Parliament constituency)|Midhurst]] in Sussex. Also, bribery of voters remained a problem. As Sir [[Thomas Erskine May]] observed, "it was too soon evident, that as more votes had been created, more votes were to be sold".<ref>{{cite book|author=May|title=The Constitutional History of England|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YxYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA253|year=1895|page=253}}</ref>

The Reform Act strengthened the House of Commons by reducing the number of nomination boroughs controlled by peers.  Some aristocrats complained that, in the future, the government could compel them to pass any bill, simply by threatening to swamp the House of Lords with new peerages. The Duke of Wellington lamented: "If such projects can be carried into execution by a minister of the Crown with impunity, there is no doubt that the constitution of this House, and of this country, is at an end.... [T]here is absolutely an end put to the power and objects of deliberation in this House, and an end to all just and proper means of decision."<ref>Quoted in {{cite book|author=May|title=The Constitutional History of England|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YxYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA253|year=1895|page=253}}</ref>  The subsequent history of Parliament, however, shows that the influence of the Lords was largely undiminished. They compelled the Commons to accept significant amendments to the [[Municipal Corporations Act 1835|Municipal Reform Bill]] in 1835, forced compromises on [[Emancipation of the Jews in England|Jewish emancipation]], and successfully resisted several other bills supported by the public.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 316–317.</ref> It would not be until decades later, culminating in the [[Parliament Act 1911]], that Wellington's fears would come to pass.

===Further reform===
During the ensuing years, Parliament adopted several more minor reforms. Acts of Parliament passed in 1835 and 1836 increased the number of polling places in each constituencies and thus  reduced polling to a single day.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 449.</ref> Parliament also passed several laws aimed at combatting corruption, including the [[Corrupt Practices Act 1854]], though these measures proved largely ineffectual. Neither party strove for further major reform; leading statesmen on both sides regarded the Reform Act as a final settlement.{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

There was considerable public agitation for further expansion of the electorate, however.  In particular, the [[Chartism|Chartist movement]], which demanded [[universal suffrage]] for men, equally sized electoral districts, and voting by [[secret ballot]], gained a widespread following. However, the Tories were united against further reform, and the Liberal Party (successor to the Whigs) did not seek a general revision of the electoral system until 1852. The 1850s saw Lord John Russell introduce a number of reform bills to correct defects the first act had left unaddressed. However, no proposal was successful until 1867, when Parliament adopted the [[Reform Act 1867|Second Reform Act]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

An area the Reform Act did not address was the issue of municipal and regional government. As a result of archaic traditions, many English counties had enclaves and exclaves, which were mostly abolished in the [[Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844]]. Furthermore, many new conurbations and economic areas bridged traditional county boundaries by having been formed in previously obscure areas: the West Midlands conurbation bridged Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire, Manchester and Liverpool both had hinterlands in Cheshire but city centres in Lancashire, while in the south Oxford's developing southern suburbs were in Berkshire and London was expanding into Essex, Surrey and Middlesex. This led to further acts to reorganise county boundaries in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}